On Nov. 4, Greenfield voters will see a referendum question on the ballot that will change how how we grow and impact how we govern our future. On its face, it seems simple: Should the Hope Street lot stay, or go? But the long-term implications of that “simple” question are why you deserve to know what each answer actually means.

This vote isn’t about asphalt or nostalgia. This vote is about whether Greenfield governs with clarity and courage, or whether we fall to misinformation and decay. The people leading the charge for the “Yes” campaign are the same people who have been against all positive change, from the library to affordable housing. Now they’re using the language of the referendum to fool voters into supporting that same obstruction.

So, let’s clear something up: a “Yes” vote does NOT support housing. A “Yes” vote rescinds the City Council’s decision to allow the sale of the lot. Metered parking is not guaranteed by voting “Yes” either — only a lot frozen exactly as it is today.

The opposition is banking on your confusion to win this referendum. And if we pull back the slogans, some fair questions arise:

    • Why are “yes” landlords opposed to more housing, if not for fear of having to offer competitive pricing for their properties?

    • Why do tax-paying homeowners lament the possibility of new property revenue, if not to discourage “undesirable” neighbors?

    • Why promote the false idea that the public will have no say on what goes on the lot, when by law such hearings must be public?

The decision to sell the Hope Street Lot was evidence-based. An independent third-party study confirmed that we have an abundance of parking in this city, burying the myth of need.

For years, that lot has been empty or blocked off, and we’ve managed perfectly well without it. As such, the City Council voted over the summer to sell the lot as surplus, with the goal to open it for proposals from builders to turn it into housing. The type of housing that ends up there has yet to be determined, but it is not a secret as to why: the law dictates that it must be allowed to sell before a developer can propose something new. We are also not bound to accept something for the sake of it, and can always hold onto that surplus land until we come to a solution that best benefits Greenfield.

If we vote “Yes” now, we cement the status quo for simple fear of having options, and I love my city too much to not speak out. That’s why I’ll be voting “No,” and why I urge you all to do the same.

Vote No to stagnation, NO to obfuscation, and NO to dishonest campaigns. Vote NO on election day to say “no more” to the interests of the few, and help us guide our city into the future that benefits everyone.

Sarah Bolduc lives in Greenfield.